Are we really at the point where there’s an available home for every voluntarily released newborn? I know private adoptions are very popular, but it’s surprising to hear that none of these kids ever have to spend any time, however short that time period is, in foster care anymore.
AFAIK, you can’t voluntarily release a newborn. That’s called abandonment, and unless you are in a state with safe haven laws, it’s a crime. The state won’t just take kids if people don’t want them: you have a legal obligation to support your child as long as they are your child.
But no, I haven’t heard that adoption agencies are turning away pregnant women because they have more newborns than they can place. I have heard of plenty of people waiting months or years to adopt a newborn.
Raising a child with special needs is hella expensive. Providing the right specialized care is hella expensive. Usually the child outlives the parents and if fortunate has sibling(s) willing to assume the role of guardian and caretaker. Good luck with trying to do a career fast track and/or with travel while still trying to care for your child. It’s a tough gig and burns up a lot of money.
As pointed out upthread, the social safety net provided in the US to special needs children has cough cough gaps cough cough that the parents/insurance need to cover. If there was a better safety net, then the burden on a family would be reduced. One simple example, my daughter gets 30 whole minutes of speech therapy *per week * during the regular school year at the very wealthy public school district that she attends. We take her to private therapy, which has worked wonders and only costs $120 hour. I think about the kids that live in a crappy school district, parents on the low end of the socio-economic ladder, no extended family nearby, and don’t have cadillac insurance…
I can certainly understand the parents filing a lawsuit. I’m not sure the merit as the test is not 100% infallable, and fate can roll ugly dice. Naturally, I agree with the poster that wrote we need a better safety net as society.
From my admitted small knowledge of embryology, this is true. However, I believe if it was true when you were an embryo, it should also be true when you’re an adult. That is entire regions of your body are ‘patchy’ due to having a shared cell lineage.
The counter-counter claim in the article is that they’ve re-performed the tests on the girl after birth and only 1-2% of the samples show up as being normal cells. This does not track with the ‘patchy’ possibility in my opinion. If this is true, then It seems more likely that they mistakenly took maternal tissue for the test.
For the record, I’d sue. If only because it was the well being and the level of care I could give my daughter at stake.
Here’sone page about the steps a social worker would take when working with an expectant mother who wanted to voluntarily terminate her rights. I’d be interested in a cite that you can’t voluntarily terminate your rights to your newborn, short of dropping it off anonymously.
It was quite awhile ago (eighteen years) but I know someone who was adopted through foster care after being placed there voluntarily as a newborn by the parents (and not in an anonymous safe haven sort of thing), but it’s very possible that things have changed.
I’ve heard of plenty of people waiting years to adopt healthy newborns.
This is true, and nothing the tests can tell you. In contrast to Girl From Mars’ five-year-old relative still in diapers, one of the kids I worked with who had DS was learning to write at age five. There’s a big big range but you won’t know where any particular baby fits in it until well after his/her birth.
At least the mom can apply for Medicaid since her daughter has a qualifying developmental disability. Medicaid doesn’t cover everything…but later on in life, this will help the down syndrome female to be placed in a developmental disability group home, which are Medicaid funded.
Knowing the health risks and cost, I would sue too.
From your own cite:
You can apply to have your parental rights terminated, but it has to be done by the courts, it’s not an automatic option. It will only occur if the courts decide it’s in the best interest of the child–for example, when there is another family who wants to adopt. I can see that they might let someone terminate and place the kids in foster care if 1) there was reason to believe that was coming anyway (i.e., kids had been removed for cause, or mother was in prison or something) and this was just speeding up this process. 2) They were reasonably confident that the child could be placed permanently quickly. But if you have the means to support your kids, I don’t think they will let you just put them in the system and go your merry way. That[s why all those people drove to Kansas to drop off their older kids when the “safe haven” law omitted an age cap. They wanted out of parenthood and had no path in their own states.
The question was never whether the option was automatic. The question was whether the option exists at all for the people in this situation, and the part you quoted and the anecdote about people flocking to drop off much older kids in a “no questions asked” situation doesn’t provide an answer.
If I were in the position of the couple in the article, I would file a lawsuit as well. They appear to love their daughter very much, but loving her very much doesn’t magically give them the ability to afford all of the extra care she’ll need or might need.
As a side note, I hope law enforcement are vigorous in following up the death threats they’re receiving.
I was understanding you to be saying that if a parent wants to transfer their support obligations to the state, it’s pretty much an automatic process. I do not believe that to be the case. I don’t know that it’s ever been the case. Parents who are competent and have the financial means to take care of their children are generally “stuck” with them unless they can find someone else who wants them. The state will only take them if it’s in the best interests of the child-- and the assumption is that staying with your parents is in your best interest.
From Here (bolding mine):
On the bold, no, that was never what I was saying. What I’m curious about was whether the claim that a child in the situation in the OP would never end up in foster care, because there were homes out there for every infant placed for adoption, disabled or not. That, of course, started this hijack about whether the average people are allowed to turn a child over to foster care at all. Your point about financial means comes into play here. A family who was expecting a healthy child might not have the funds to take care of a profoundly disabled child. As I mentioned earlier, I knew of a situation where a child was voluntarily relinquished, which was due to financial issues and who ended up in foster care, which makes me assume a situation like that could occur with a disabled child too.
My point was that Broomstick seemed to be suggesting that it was unethical to allow your kid with Downs to be adopted because their chances of being adopted were near zero and they would therefore end up in the foster care system. My point is that most infant adoptions are handled privately and the child goes from one set of parents to their new parents without spending meaningful time as a ward of the state (though there may be some processing time). If such parents could not be found, the child wouldn’t be put in foster care, they would remain with their biological parents.
I went on to speculate that if competent, financially sound parents could not find adoptive parents through any avenue, I do not believe the state would terminate their rights at their request simply because they didn’t feel emotionally or financially up to the task. It doesn’t seem like it would be the child’s interest to go into permanent foster care if the alternative is sound, competent, albeit reluctant, parents. I related what happened in Nebraskato point out that there are parents out there who have wanted to have their parental rights terminated and who could not get released from their responsibilities to their kids.
My understanding is that you can basically put your child into State care. But you are essentially institutionalizing your child and IMHO making it even more difficult for them to be functioning adults. I can understand why some parents do that, and frankly some of the children can’t be kept at home (dangerous for the other children, risk to themselves, completely non functioning). The Elephant in the Room has a range of parent stories about their special needs children if anyone is interested…
Income levels determine what supplementary care may be available. In the recent years of State cutbacks, services for special needs kids have been seriously curtailed.
Medicare/Medicad will kick in at 18 when they become an adult if you apply early enough.
Yes, I followed the whole discussion; at this point, I’m not seeing anything new in this post that we haven’t already covered, so it’s probably time to drop the hijack.
IMHO - it is incredibly wrong to sue the doctor or the test company over a test result that was in error - the test result did not cause the condition, and the condition was clearly always a possibility.
even if the test were done incorrectly - it was conducted in good faith.
The only exception I would make here is that if the conduction of the test itself was done in a manner that caused actual harm as a result (manner of test, not results of test).
We are at the point in this society that I am afraid to give directions to someone - if I get them wrong, I could be sued for loss of time, wages, gas, etc - and at the price of gas - this is gonna get expensive.
People finding ways to shore up income and blame others for everything is a crock.
I hope this case gets tossed to the curb.
For me to be on board with them suing, I would have to see proof that the doctor/laboratory departed significantly from established protocols. Because there is no perfect test. Also, if they were not properly informed about the inaccuracy of the testing, then I would agree that a lawsuit is in order.
The mosaicism of the Down’s Syndrome suggest to me that this wasn’t necessarily a case of sloppy laboratory work, but rather just really bad luck.
The Levy’s won the suit.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/jury_rules_in_portland-area_co.html
Nobody said the hospital caused the Down Syndrome. However the incorrect test result caused the parents to let the pregnancy go to term instead of having an abortion.
If you were going in for surgery or medical tests and they were done wrong, would you give the hospital a pass because the error was made “in good faith?” I’m guessing you wouldn’t.
Simster,
Perhaps a different perspective.
If you pay a Market research firm to get you accurate demographic figures regarding a certain market. When they report back to you you use that information to make critical business decisions. Then, at a later date you find out those demographic figures are grossly incorrect and it causes your business harm because of it.
Do you have the right to sue them? They may have performed the research in good faith, but the fact is you paid them to do a job for you, and they did the job wrong.
We don’t have enough information to know if this is truly the case.
As I explained earlier, mosaicism should persist into the child outside of the womb. That is, if the down syndrome is patchy, it should CONTINUE to be patchy in the child. The article states that later only 1-2% of the cells showed normal cells. That number only makes sense in 2 situations.
- Each sample showed 98% down syndrome and 2% normal
- They took 100 samples and 98 of them showed down syndrome and 2 did not.
#2 doesn’t make sense to me and #1 doesn’t track scientifically (I admit, this is based on my limited knowledge of embryology) with extended areas of patchiness.